I’ve been reflecting a lot lately on CORE’s mission: to ‘push the boundaries of educational possibility’. Most of the work we do at CORE involves working with educators, schools, and government agencies to introduce innovative approaches to what they do. Of course, the innovation itself isn’t the end we’re looking for, but is the means by which we are attempting to make a contribution to an education system that is relevant, future-focused, and ‘world class’.
So, we are looking for a 'world-class' education system
The concept of how we develop a ‘world-class’ education system is high on the agenda of governments and education leaders around the world. An obvious and appropriate measure for this is based on measuring student performance and success—as illustrated by the approach taken by the OECD with its PISA studies.
I blogged earlier this year about Andreas Schleicher who spoke on the background and findings of the PISA studies. Schleicher challenges us to think about how this data might be used to bring about change at a whole-of-system level, rather than at an individual school level, and points out that the bottom line for where we put our energy and resourcing must be related to understanding what we value most about education.
What we value is closely aligned with the beliefs we hold about education, and the mental models we have developed as a result of these beliefs—which exist for all of us whether we are conscious of it or not. Often, these values and beliefs lie below the surface, the product of the modeling and ‘conditioning’ of our own school experiences.
Agendas for change
When working with education leaders—at school or national level—one thing I find is that the language used to describe what they’re doing in their efforts to bring about change reveals two quite different perspectives—what I call agendas for change.
The first is what I refer to as the ‘improvement agenda’, where the assumption is that what we are doing is fundamentally OK, but needs to be refined, adapted, modified in some way to improve it in areas of poor performance—a little like tuning a motor car to get better ‘miles per gallon’ in performance. The motor and the car it propels are essentially the same—but performance has been improved through adaptations to the way the fuel feeds through the carburetor, or with ‘spoilers’ added to the bodywork to improve airflow around the vehicle for instance.
The second is what I call the ‘transformation agenda’, where there is a conscious effort to question the existing paradigm and propose alternative models or approaches. The differences between these two agendas are illustrated in the summary table below—which I’ve blogged about earlier this year also.
|
Improvement |
Transformation |
|
|
Basic premise |
Making what we already have and do more effective. Improving the status quo. |
Questioning the current paradigm, proposing alternative models/approaches . |
|
Education |
Broken, but can be fixed with strategic interventions. |
Long term investment in the future for society as a whole. |
|
Schools |
Location for physically delivering education, competitive, insular. |
A context for education, collaborative, networked. |
|
Technology |
Drives change. |
Enables, supports and accelerates change. |
|
Teachers |
Focus on becoming effective. |
Supported professionals—co-creating the future |
|
Learners |
The future workforce, need for basic skills and knowledge. |
Future (global) citizens. |
|
Innovation |
Happening on lots of fronts at once. |
Must be scalable and sustainable. |
|
Success |
Meeting standards, passing tests, measuring performance. |
Wider, long-term benefits, developing dispositions. |
|
Curriculum |
Standardised, defined, ‘packaged’. |
A framework to guide and support schools and teachers. |
The reason for trains and planes…
To go back to my transportation metaphor—consider the difference between trains and planes. The fundamental problem they are seeking to address is the same—how to efficiently and cost-effectively transport goods and people over long distances.
Over many years improvements were made to the rail systems in countries around the world—from steam, to diesel to electric, from narrow gauge to wider gauge rails etc. All of which provided faster, more efficient service in the transportation of goods and people—provided they were on a rail network and bound by the geographical boundaries of the continent on which they were located.
Then came planes. Not only could they do everything that trains could do, but they were able to cross the boundaries of continents separated by vast oceans, and could also change route to land in different places without the need for a rail system to get them there. Planes were transformational. In the world of air transportation we now enjoy holidays in Australia or Paris, and have food in our supermarkets from dozens of countries all over the world.
…education faces the same challenge
This is the challenge in our education system. In seeking to establish a world class approach, where learners are equipped to live and work as citizens in a globally connected, increasingly digital world, we need to consider how appropriate our current structures and systems are — whether they are ‘fit for purpose’ in the 21st century. Consider things like the hours in the school day, the division of tasks among teachers, the grouping of learners according to age, and the building of schools as blocks of ‘egg-crate’ classrooms etc.
This is not an easy thing to do, as there is a lot of emotional attachment associated with what we’ve done in the past, and a lot of our sense of identity and worth can be tied up with that. But that’s about us — our focus needs to be on our learners and their future.
We can focus purely on improvement—in which case we’ll end up with shinier, faster, more effective versions of our current schools. Or, we can be transformational, and think more ‘out of the box’, imagining what the experience of education might be like if we simply removed all of the existing structures and systems we have.
The challenge is ours for building a 21st Century School System—will we be building trains or planes?
Latest posts by Derek Wenmoth (see all)
- What’s cool about COOLs? - September 7, 2016
- Three tips for becoming a digitally fluent educator - August 3, 2016
- PD and change management - March 18, 2016
You've got it in one Derek! This article should be on the wall of every home in the country.
Thanks for the comment Denis – appreciate the response ;-)
I feel that somewhere along the line there needs to be a balance between the two. Planes have been transformational but so were trains. Once planes were developed they then went through a period of improvement which ultimately provides a good known consistency to travel. Planes are still in a period of improvement and Richard Branson is one ot those at the forefront. If we were constantly in periods of transformation I believe we would be living in utter confusion and chaos. Economies need consistency to operate. Those companies that develop new products need the products to be sold consistenly before changing otherwise they will not make money. I believe the same possibly applies to education systems. We obviously dont make money but we do need time to see if an improvement is actually an improvement or the transformation put in place does actually make a radical positive differerence.
Hi David — thanks for taking the time to contribute a fulsome reply. I don't have a problem with your perspective at all — and would agree strongly with the notion of seeking consistency as an outcome of improvement (along with reliability and quality). The point I was endeavouring to make in the article, however, is that while the goals of improvement are laudable (and necessary), what we need at the moment is a transformational view — in the way that planes allowed us to span the boundaries of continents in ways that trains can't and could never do because of the limitations of geography. In education we have had a long history of improvement initiatives — some of which have actually worked. But at the end of the day, even if all of them had worked, we'd still end up with an improved version of what already existed. The improvement agenda, by its nature, assumes that the current paradigm is 'fit for purpose' — it simply needs improvement. My challenge is to think about what if it is no longer 'fit for purpose'? What if the time has come to pursue an entirely different approach? You make the statement that 'economies need consistency to operate'. While that may be true, it would likely be the view of those who have the most to gain from a consistent view of the economy, because it serves their interests for nothing to change too radically. But in the current global economy we are seeing all sorts of 'disruptive innovation' that is challenging and actually 'displacing' encumbant operators. (see the work of <a href="http://www.claytonchristensen.com/key-concepts/">Clay Christensen</a> for more on this.)